Search

Background: This study aimed to describe the use of pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs) and dry powder inhalers (DPIs) in Spanish subjects in terms of sociodemographic, clinical, and functional characteristics in subjects with asthma or COPD on maintenance treatment with inhaled therapy., Methods: This was a retrospective, descriptive, national, multi-center, and observational study using a database with 1.8 million patients from hospitals and primary care centers as a secondary information source., Results: The sample included 24,102 subjects with asthma on maintenance therapy (26.0% with pMDI, 55% with DPI, and 19.0% with a combination of DPI + pMDI inhalers) and 12,858 subjects with COPD on maintenance therapy (26% with pMDI; 39% with DPI; and 35% with a combination of pMDI + DPI inhalers, mostly extemporary triple therapy). In proportion, subjects ≥ 75 y old used more pMDI than DPI, while younger subjects (40-64 y old) used more DPI. An inhalation chamber was prescribed in 51.0% of subjects with asthma and 47.2% of subjects with COPD treated with pMDI. The use of an inhalation chamber increases with the degree of air-flow limitation by disease and age. In subjects with comorbidities, pMDI inhaler use increased in those ≥ 75 y old for subjects with asthma and subjects with COPD. Switching from pMDI to DPI and vice versa was relatively common: 25% of subjects with asthma and 21.6% of subjects with COPD treated with pMDI had switched from DPI in the previous year. On the contrary, 14.1% and 11.4% of subjects with asthma and subjects with COPD, respectively, treated with DPI had switched from pMDI the last year., Conclusions: The use of pMDI or DPI can vary according to age, both in asthma and COPD. Switching from pMDI to DPI and vice versa is relatively common. Despite the availability of dual- and triple-therapy inhalers on the market, a considerable number of subjects were treated with multiple devices., Competing Interests: Dr Muñoz discloses relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Faes Farma, Gebro Pharma, GSK, Menarini, Mundipharma, Novartis, Sanofi, and Teva. Dr Re is an employee of Chiesi España. The remaining authors have disclosed no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 by Daedalus Enterprises.)

Introduction: Cabotegravir, an integrase strand transfer inhibitor, and rilpivirine, an NNRTI, constitute the first long-acting (LA), injectable, two-drug ART regimen approved for the maintenance of virological suppression in persons living with HIV-1 (PLHIV). The aim of this study was to assess clinical effectiveness and tolerability of LA cabotegravir/rilpivirine in a real-world setting., Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective, single centre study, including all PLHIV receiving LA cabotegravir/rilpivirine as standard-of-care in our tertiary centre even if initiated in clinical trials., Results: Between 2014 and 2022, 126 PLHIV initiated LA cabotegravir/rilpivirine. All were ART-experienced, and 98.4% had a viral load (VL) of <50 copies/mL before LA cabotegravir/rilpivirine initiation. Median BMI at cabotegravir/rilpivirine initiation was 24 IQR (23-28). During a median follow-up of 9 months IQR (7-24), 27 patients discontinued cabotegravir/rilpivirine: 5 because of virological failure, 6 for adverse events, 11 for personal reasons unrelated to treatment tolerance and 5 for other reasons. Virological failure was not associated with a higher BMI, nor with weight gain during LA intramuscular (IM) cabotegravir/rilpivirine treatment, inadequate cabotegravir and rilpivirine concentrations, VL blips or the use of oral lead-in (OLI) or not. No drug resistance-associated mutation emerged. Adverse events leading to treatment interruption were injection-site pain (n = 3) and neuropsychological side effects (n = 3). A correlation between BMI and both cabotegravir and rilpivirine concentrations at 1 month post-initiation of LA-IM cabotegravir/rilpivirine was observed, with no impact of OLI., Conclusions: Data from this real-world cohort of PLHIV who received cabotegravir/rilpivirine LA injections suggest that this regimen is effective and well tolerated. Virological failures were not associated with the acquisition of resistance mutations., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background and Aims: Quality of life in patients with active Crohn's disease may be significantly reduced. We evaluated the effects of upadacitinib induction and maintenance therapy on fatigue, quality of life, and work productivity in the phase 3 trials U-EXCEL, U-EXCEED, and U-ENDURE., Methods: Clinical responders to upadacitinib 45 mg in U-EXCEL and U-EXCEED induction trials were re-randomised 1:1:1 to upadacitinib 30 mg, 15 mg, or placebo for 52 weeks of maintenance in U-ENDURE. Clinically meaningful improvements in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire [IBDQ] response, IBDQ remission, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue [FACIT-Fatigue], and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment were evaluated. Percentages of patients achieving clinically meaningful improvements were assessed at induction Weeks 4 and 12 and maintenance Week 52., Clinical Registration Number: U-EXCEED induction trial [NCT03345836], U-EXCEL induction trial [NCT03345849], U-ENDURE maintenance trial [NCT03345823]., Results: Analysis included 1021 and 502 patients assessed at induction and maintenance, respectively. In U-EXCEL, greater improvements [all p ≤ 0.001] in IBDQ response [71.0% vs 50.2%], IBDQ remission [44.2% vs 23.7%], and FACIT-Fatigue [42.0% vs 27.0%] were observed in upadacitinib-treated patients versus placebo at Week 4. Improvements in IBDQ response, IBDQ remission, and FACIT-Fatigue were similar or greater at Week 12. Clinically meaningful improvement in overall work impairment [52.1% vs 38.1%, p ≤ 0.05] was demonstrated at Week 12. Similar results were observed in U-EXCEED. Improvements were sustained through 52 weeks of upadacitinib maintenance treatment., Conclusions: In patients with active Crohn's disease, upadacitinib treatment relative to placebo significantly improved fatigue, quality of life, and work productivity as early as Week 4. These effects were sustained through 52 weeks of maintenance., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation.)

Background: Although two recent phase III randomized controlled trials showed survival benefits of undergoing secondary cytoreductive surgery for an initial relapse of ovarian cancer, patients who received a poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) as the first-line maintenance treatment, which is currently the standard treatment for advanced ovarian cancer, were not included in those trials. Therefore, determining an optimal treatment strategy, including secondary cytoreductive surgery, in patients whose cancer progresses even with PARPi treatment, is needed., Primary Objective: To determine whether secondary cytoreductive surgery is beneficial in patients who have progressed on PARPi maintenance treatment., Study Hypothesis: Secondary cytoreductive surgery followed by chemotherapy is superior to chemotherapy alone for patients who have progressed on PARPi maintenance treatment., Trial Design: The SOCCER-P study is a multicenter randomized phase II clinical trial. Patients who meet the eligibility criteria will be randomized to either undergo secondary cytoreductive surgery and subsequent platinum-based chemotherapy plus or minus bevacizumab, or to receive platinum-based chemotherapy plus or minus bevacizumab alone. Patients randomly allocated to the surgery group will undergo secondary cytoreductive surgery followed by six cycles of a physician's choice of platinum-based chemotherapy once they have recovered from surgery., Major Inclusion/exclusion Criteria: The major inclusion criteria are as follows: first recurrence of disease with treatment-free interval from last platinum dose (TFIp) ≥6 months and progression during PARPi maintenance or treatment-free interval from last PARPi therapy (TFI PARPi ) <3 months. The major exclusion criteria are as follows: >1 line of prior chemotherapy, TFIp <6 months, and radiological signs suggesting metastases not accessible to surgical removal (complete resection is deemed not possible)., Primary Endpoint: Progression-free survival., Sample Size: 124 patients., Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting Results: Accrual completion approximately the end of 2026 and the results are expected after 2 years of follow-up in 2029., Trial Registration: NCT05704621., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© IGCS and ESGO 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a poor prognosis. The POLO trial showed that olaparib (PARP inhibitor) improved progression-free survival (PFS) but not overall survival (OS), when used as maintenance therapy after ≥ 16 weeks of disease control with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with germline (g) BRCA 1 or 2 pathogenic variants (PV) metastatic PDAC. However, real-world data on the effectiveness of olaparib are missing., Methods: Patients with unresectable PDAC associated with somatic (s) or (g)BRCA1/2 and (g)non-BRCA-HRD PV (i.e. other homologous recombination deficiency/HRD genes) who were treated with olaparib between 2020-2023 were included. The primary objective was to describe treatment patterns. Secondary exploratory objectives included OS and PFS in patients treated with olaparib according to the POLO trial or not, OS and PFS in patients with (g)HRD PV-associated PDAC versus (s)PVs, olaparib safety profile and factors associated with olaparib poor outcomes., Results: Among 85 patients, 45.9 % received olaparib as defined by the POLO trial. No difference in OS and PFS was observed between patients who received olaparib according to the POLO trial versus not. Patients with (g)HRD PV-associated PDAC had better OS compared to others (22.3 versus 10.5 months, p = 0.038). Factors associated with olaparib poor outcomes included a high neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and the use of olaparib outside the recommendations of the POLO trial. Few grade ≥ 3 adverse events were reported (9.4 %)., Conclusion: Patients with (g)HRD PV-associated PDAC had longer OS than those with (s)HRD PV. Olaparib use beyond the scope of the POLO trial was associated with poor outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest APe declares speaker’s engagement from Servier; consulting/advisory role for Amgen; travel grant from Ipsen, Merk and Servier. DT reports consultancy, advisory fees, honoraria from Servier, Pierre Fabre, Merck Serono, MSD, BMS, AZ, Roche, Sanofi; research funding from Sandoz, Astra Zenenca, Servier, MSD; travel grants from Pierre Fabre, MSD, Servier, Roche. JT has received honoraria as a speaker and/or in an advisory role from: AMGEN, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck KGaA, MSD, Novartis, ONO pharmaceuticals, Pierre Fabre, Roche Genentech, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda. MM reports consultancy, advisory fees, honoraria from Pierre Fabre, Merck Serono, MSD, Takeda; travel grants from Pierre Fabre, Servier. OB reports consultancy, advisory fees, honoraria from Servier, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Merck Serono, MSD, Takeda, Deciphera; travel grants from Pierre Fabre, Servier, MSD., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Several topical and oral drugs are available for maintenance therapy of recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (RVVC)(≥ 3 episodes of symptomatic Candida infection per year). The study aimed to assess the risk of early (24 weeks) and late (48-52 weeks) clinical and mycological recurrences associated with oral/topical pharmacological maintenance therapy of RVVC., Methods: Search strategy: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, OVID and clinical trials registers,from inception until January 2024., Selection Criteria: Blinded and unblinded randomized studies of pharmacological prevention of RVVC recurrences during active treatment and after discontinuation of therapy., Data Collection and Analysis: Risk of bias, indirectness, imprecision, heterogeneity and incoherence of the network were evaluated by a semi-automated software.Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to evaluate effects of interventions on outcomes,league table and ranking of effects., Results: The network included 17 studies with 2304 women for early and 2179 for late recurrences. During active treatment weekly oral oteseconazole (OR = 0.05,95 %CI = 0.02-0.12, moderate confidence),weekly oral fluconazole/itraconazole (OR = 0.12,95 %CI = 0.052-0.35,moderate confidence) and weekly topical clotrimazole (OR = 0.087,95 %CI = 0.018-0.48,moderate confidence) were associated with a significant reduction in RVVC recurrence risk compared to placebo/untreated subjects.Weekly use of fluconazole/itraconazole (OR = 0.44,95 %CI = 0.24-0.80,moderate confidence) and monthly topical treatment (OR = 0.34,95 %CI = 0.18-0.66,moderate confidence) maintained efficacy after discontinuation of therapy (48-52 weeks). Weekly oteseconazole was significantly more effective in reducing the occurrence of late clinical (OR = 0.065,95 %CI = 0.036-0.11,moderate confidence) and mycological (OR = 0.073,95 %CI = 0.044-0.12,moderate confidence) RVVC recurrences than all other types of treatment tested., Conclusions: Weekly maintenance therapy with oral fluconazole/itraconazole,oteseconazole, or topical clotrimazole was equally effective in preventing early RVVC recurrence.After therapy discontinuation, oteseconazole outperformed all other oral or topical regimens, lowering RVVC clinical and mycological recurrence rates by more than 90%., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Randomised placebo-controlled trials for the induction of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remission involve potential harms to those receiving placebo. Whether these harms are also apparent with placebo during maintenance of remission trials in IBD is unclear. We aimed to examine the potential harms associated with receiving placebo in trials of licensed biologics and small molecules for maintenance of remission of ulcerative colitis and luminal Crohn's disease in a meta-analysis., Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched several medical literature databases including MEDLINE (from Jan 1, 1946, to May 31, 2024), Embase and Embase Classic (Jan 1, 1947, to May 31, 2024), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from database inception to May 31, 2024, for randomised placebo-controlled trials of licensed biologics and small molecules for maintenance of remission in adults with IBD reporting data on adverse events over a period of 20 weeks or more. There were no language restrictions or prespecified exclusion criteria. We extracted summary data and pooled data using a random-effects model for any treatment-emergent adverse event, drug-related adverse event, infection, worsening of IBD activity, withdrawal due to adverse events, serious adverse events, serious infection, serious worsening of IBD activity, or venous thromboembolic events, reporting relative risks (RRs) for placebo versus active drug with 95% CIs for each outcomes. The protocol for this meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024542624)., Findings: Our search identified 10 826 citations, of which 45 trials including 16 562 patients (10 319 [62·3%] receiving active drug and 6243 [37·7%] placebo) were eligible. The risks of any treatment-emergent adverse event (7297/9546 [76·4%] patients on active drug vs 4415/5850 [75·5%] on placebo; RR 1·01, 95% CI 0·99-1·04; I 2 =47%), serious infection (260/10 242 [2·5%] vs 155/6149 [2·5%]; 0·97, 0·79-1·19; I 2 =0%), or venous thromboembolic event (12/4729 [0·3%] vs 9/2691 [0·3%]; 0·72, 0·31-1·66; I 2 =0%) were not significantly lower with active drug than placebo. The risks of any infection (3208/8038 [39·9%] vs 1713/4809 [35·6%]; 1·14, 1·05-1·23; I 2 =60%) or any drug-related adverse event (1094/2997 [36·5%] vs 609/1950 [31·2%]; 1·24, 1·02-1·50; I 2 =75%) were higher with active drug than placebo. However, the risks of any worsening of IBD activity (1038/8090 [12·8%] vs 1181/5191 [22·8%]; 0·58, 0·52-0·64; I 2 =40%), any withdrawal due to adverse events (610/10 282 [5·9%] vs 561/6207 [9·0%]; 0·71, 0·60-0·84; I 2 =43%), any serious adverse events (1066/10 292 [10·4%] vs 742/6198 [12·0%]; 0·85, 0·77-0·94; I 2 =17%), or any serious worsening of IBD activity (101/5707 [1·8%] vs 143/3640 [3·9%]; 0·55, 0·42-0·71; I 2 =0%) were lower with active drug than placebo. 21 randomised controlled trials were judged as low risk of bias across all domains., Interpretation: In maintenance of remission trials in IBD, placebo was associated with some clinically significant potential harms. Patients should be counselled about these before participating in clinical trials and consideration given to alternative designs to test novel drugs in IBD., Funding: None., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SD declares grants from The Helmsley Charitable Trust, Edinburgh, Lothians Health Foundation, Pathological Society of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Lord Leonard and Lady Estelle Wolfson Foundation; consulting fees from AbbVie; personal speaker fees from Janssen, Ferring, and Takeda; and meeting and travel grants from Janssen, Takeda, Lilly, and Dr Falk. JB received a grant from Crohn's and Colitis UK and speaker fees from Thermo Fisher Scientific and Takeda. JS has received speaker fees for Takeda, Sandoz, Pfizer, and Bristol Myers Squibb; conference sponsorship from Takeda, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Jassen; and an unrestricted research grant from Tillots. BG has served as consultant to Galapagos, Pfizer, and AbbVie and as speaker for AbbVie, Janssen, Takeda, Pfizer, and Galapagos, and has received support for attending meetings by Dr Falk, Galapagos, Takeda, and Janssen. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Crown Copyright © 2024 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.)

Background: The phase III PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 trial met its primary endpoint. Niraparib first-line maintenance significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) among patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer that responded to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, regardless of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) status. Final overall survival (OS) results are reported., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized 2:1 to niraparib or placebo, stratified by response to first-line treatment, receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and tumor HRD status. After reaching 60% target maturity, OS was evaluated via a stratified log-rank test using randomization stratification factors and summarized using Kaplan-Meier methodology. OS testing was hierarchical [overall population first, then the homologous recombination-deficient (HRd) population]. Other secondary outcomes and long-term safety were assessed; an updated, ad hoc analysis of investigator-assessed PFS was also conducted (cut-off date, 8 April 2024)., Results: The median follow-up was 73.9 months. In the overall population, the OS hazard ratio was 1.01 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84-1.23; P = 0.8834] for niraparib (n = 487) versus placebo (n = 246). In the HRd (n = 373) and homologous recombination-proficient (n = 249) populations, the OS hazard ratios were 0.95 (95% CI 0.70-1.29) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.69-1.26), respectively. Subsequent poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor therapy was received by 11.7% and 15.8% of niraparib patients and 37.8% and 48.4% of placebo patients in the overall and HRd populations, respectively. The 5-year PFS rate numerically favored niraparib in the overall (niraparib, 22%; placebo, 12%) and HRd populations (niraparib, 35%; placebo, 16%). Myelodysplastic syndromes/acute myeloid leukemia incidence was <2.5% (niraparib, 2.3%; placebo, 1.6%). No new safety signals were observed., Conclusions: In patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer at high risk of recurrence, there was no difference in OS between treatment arms. In the HRd population, patients alive at 5 years were two times as likely to be progression free with niraparib treatment than placebo. Long-term safety remained consistent with the established niraparib safety profile., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The substantial economic burden of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) could be reduced with post-remission maintenance therapies that delay relapse. Real-world healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) data and costs among patients with AML receiving oral azacitidine (Oral-AZA) maintenance therapy or no maintenance are not well understood. We characterize HCRU and costs among these patients in clinical practice in the USA., Methods: Data from IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus (January 1, 2016-June 30, 2022) were used. Patients ≥ 18 years who were newly diagnosed with AML, received first-line systemic induction therapy, and attained disease remission were eligible. Patients receiving Oral-AZA maintenance and those receiving no maintenance ("watch and wait" [W&W]) were matched 1:3 on baseline characteristics using propensity score matching (PSM) and followed until hematopoietic stem cell transplantation or end of continuous insurance enrollment, whichever occurred first. Outcomes included treatment patterns, inpatient and outpatient visits, and costs., Results: After PSM, the Oral-AZA cohort included 43 patients and the W&W cohort 129. Of the 43 patients receiving Oral-AZA, 88.4% started at the recommended dose of 300 mg and 11.6% at 200 mg. The Oral-AZA cohort had significantly (p = 0.0025) longer median (95% CI) time to relapse from the index maintenance date (median not reached [NR; 9.0 months-NR] vs 3.3 months [0.8 months-NR]), and fewer per person per month (PPPM) hospitalizations (0.23 vs 0.61; p = 0.0005) and overall outpatient visits (5.77 vs 7.58; p = 0.0391) than the W&W cohort. Despite higher AML drug costs PPPM in the Oral-AZA cohort ($16,401 vs $10,651 for W&W), total healthcare costs PPPM were lower ($25,786 vs $38,530 for W&W; p < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Patients with newly diagnosed AML treated with Oral-AZA maintenance in clinical practice had prolonged remission and lower HCRU and costs than patients receiving no maintenance therapy. These findings underscore the clinical and economic value of Oral-AZA in clinical practice., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: In patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC) harboring pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants (PV) in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, olaparib maintenance monotherapy (OMT) is a viable option. Our study aimed to evaluate the impact of different BRCA1/2 PV in survival outcomes and safety of OMT in BRCA1/2-mutated PSROC patients, focusing on the type and location of PV., Methods: We assessed the outcomes of 100 BRCA1/2-mutated PSROC patients treated at our institute, analyzing progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Germline and tumor BRCA1/2 genotyping was conducted using Illumina's next-generation sequencing (NGS)., Results: PFS and OS were significantly shorter in PSROC patients with PV in BRCA1 compared to those with PV in BRCA2 (PFS:14.0 vs. 38.8 months, p = 0.007, OS: 21.8 vs. 62.0 months, p = 0.011). Notably, there was a significant difference in PFS based on the intragenic location of BRCA1 PV, with shorter PFS in patients with 1st/2nd relapse, harboring PV in BRCA1 RING domain compared to those with PV in the DNA binding domain (DBD) and BRCT domains (12.4 vs. 23.0 months, p = 0.046). No differences in PFS and OS were observed between patients with germline versus somatic BRCA1/2 PV (PFS:14.9 vs.19.3, p = 0.316, OS: not reached vs. 25.8 months; p = 0.224). However, there were significant differences in the reasons for OMT discontinuation between patients with germline and somatic BRCA1/2 PV, primarily due to adverse side effects., Conclusions: In summary, the type and location of BRCA1 and BRCA2 PV provide additional insight into the expected survival outcomes of olaparib MT in PSROC patients., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN42408038, Name of registry: ISRCTN registry, Date of registration: 24/11/2015., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We aimed to revalidate the chemotherapy response score (CRS) system as a prognostic factor for ovarian cancer patients with breast cancer gene ( BRCA ) mutations or those receiving frontline poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors or bevacizumab as maintenance therapy., Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed using medical records of patients with high-grade serous carcinoma who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by interval debulking surgery between January 2007 and December 2021 at 5 tertiary medical institutions in South Korea. At each hospital, pathologists independently assessed each slide of omental tissues obtained from surgery using the CRS system. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) values were obtained using Kaplan-Meier analysis to evaluate the effect of BRCA mutation, maintenance therapy, and CRS on survival time., Results: Of 466 patients, BRCA mutations were detected in 156 (33.5%) and 131 (28.1%) were treated with maintenance therapy; 98 (21.0%) and 42 (9.0%) were treated with PARP inhibitors or bevacizumab, respectively. Patients with CRS3 had significantly longer PFS than those with CRS1 or 2 (24.7 vs. 16.8 months, p<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in PFS improvement between CRS3 patients and those with CRS1 or 2 with BRCA mutation (22.0 vs. 19.3 months, p=0.193). Moreover, no significant PFS prolongation was observed in CRS3 patients compared to CRS1 or 2 patients treated with PARP inhibitors or bevacizumab (24.3 vs. 22.4 months, p=0.851; 27.5 vs. 15.7 months, p=0.347, respectively)., Conclusion: CRS may not be a prognostic factor in patients with BRCA mutations and those receiving frontline maintenance therapy., Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported., (© 2024. Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology, and Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology.)

Objective: We conducted a multi-institutional observational study to investigate whether maintenance hormone therapy following primary treatment of low-grade advanced-stage ovarian cancer (LGSOC) is associated with an overall survival advantage., Methods: We included patients with histologically confirmed stage III or IV LGSOC diagnosed between Jan 1, 2004, and Dec 31, 2019, treated in Commission on Cancer-accredited cancer programs in the US. Patients who received hormone therapy within six months of diagnosis were matched to controls who did not initiate hormone therapy during this timeframe by risk-set propensity score matching. The primary outcome was the risk of death from any cause within five years of initiation of HT or observation., Results: There were 296 patients who initiated maintenance hormone therapy within six months of diagnosis and 2805 potential controls. Patients who received hormone therapy were more often treated in academic medical centers (55% vs. 44%), diagnosed later in the study period (62% vs. 23% diagnosed in 2018-2019), and frequently received no chemotherapy during initial treatment (45% vs. 17%). After risk set propensity score matching, we identified 225 patients treated with HT and 225 untreated controls who were otherwise similar with respect to measured covariates. In the matched cohort, hormone therapy was associated with a reduction in the risk of death (hazard ratio 0.60; 95% CI 0.38-0.94), corresponding to a 60-month survival of 75% compared with 65%., Conclusions: Following primary management of LGSOC, maintenance hormone therapy was associated with improved overall survival compared with observation., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to compare the effectiveness of PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy (mPARPi) in real-world practice by biomarker status [BRCA1/2 alterations (BRCAalt) and a homologous recombination deficiency signature (HRDsig)] in advanced ovarian cancer., Experimental Design: Patients with ovarian cancer receiving first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and either mPARPi or no maintenance were included. Patient data were obtained by a US-based de-identified ovarian cancer Clinico-Genomic Database, from ∼280 US cancer clinics (01/2015-03/2023). Real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (rwOS) were compared by biomarker status using Cox models, weighted by propensity scores., Results: Of 673 patients, 160 received mPARPi [31.2% BRCAalt and 51.9% HRDsig(+)] and 513 no maintenance [15.6% BRCAalt and 34.1% HRDsig(+)]. BRCAalt patients receiving mPARPi versus no maintenance had favorable rwPFS [HR, 0.48; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.26-0.87; P = 0.0154], as did BRCA wild-type (WT; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.57-1.01; P = 0.0595). Favorable rwOS was not observed with mPARPi for BRCAalt or BRCA-WT. HRDsig(+) patients receiving mPARPi versus no maintenance had favorable rwPFS (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.24-0.55; P < 0.001) and numerically favorable rwOS (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.21-1.02; P = 0.0561). No differences were observed for HRDsig(-). mPARPi treatment interaction was observed for HRDsig(+) versus HRDsig(-) (rwPFS P < 0.001/rwOS P = 0.016) but not for BRCAalt versus BRCA-WT. Patients with BRCA-WT/HRDsig(+) receiving mPARPi had favorable rwPFS (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22-0.72; P = 0.003), whereas no difference was observed for BRCA-WT/HRDsig(-)., Conclusions: HRDsig predicted benefit of mPARPi better than BRCAalt. Patients with HRDsig(+) status experienced favorable outcomes, even if they had BRCA-WT status. In contrast, patients with HRDsig(-) status did not show significant benefit from mPARPi treatment. HRDsig might predict benefit from mPARPi regardless of BRCAalt status., (©2024 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

High-risk acute myeloid leukemia has been associated with a poor outcome. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) represents the only curative option for eligible patients. Relapse after HSCT is a dramatic event with poor chances of survival. With the aim of reducing the rate of post-HSCT relapse, maintenance treatment has been investigated in this setting. Results from clinical trials suggest an advantage in the use of a maintenance strategy; however, standardized guidelines are not yet available due to the lack of prospective clinical trials. In this review, we have reported the most important strategies adopted as post-HSCT maintenance, highlighting their efficacy, but the current research also opens questions.

Introduction: Evidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of approved therapies for ulcerative colitis (UC) during induction and maintenance, including upadacitinib (UPA), vedolizumab (VEDO), ustekinumab (UST), and tofacitinib (TOFA), is limited., Methods: Using data from phase 3 trials, three placebo (PBO)-anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons of the efficacy and safety of UPA versus VEDO, UST, and TOFA (U-ACHIEVE and U-ACCOMPLISH, GEMINI-1, UNIFI, and OCTAVE induction and maintenance trials) have been conducted. Baseline characteristics from UPA trials were weighted separately to match each comparator trial. Induction responders were re-randomized to oral UPA 15 or 30 mg, VEDO 300 mg intravenously every 8 weeks (Q8W), UST 90 mg SC Q8W, or oral TOFA 5 mg, or PBO in maintenance. Treat-through efficacy outcomes at weeks 44(UST)/46(VEDO)/52(UPA/TOFA) were adjusted by the likelihood of induction response and included clinical response, clinical remission, and endoscopic improvement. Safety outcomes included adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), and AEs leading to discontinuation (except UPA vs. VEDO). Benefit-risk was assessed by numbers needed to treat (NNT)/harm, calculated as the inverse of the difference in proportions of patients achieving each efficacy/safety outcome for UPA versus comparator., Results: The proportions of patients who demonstrated clinical response or endoscopic improvement was greater with UPA 15 mg versus VEDO and TOFA (p < 0.05). The proportions of patients demonstrating all treat-through efficacy outcomes were significantly greater with UPA 30 mg versus VEDO, UST, or TOFA with NNTs 3.2-8.7. No significant differences in proportions of AEs, SAEs, and AEs leading to discontinuation were observed between the two doses of UPA and comparators., Conclusion: In patients with active UC, greater clinical efficacy, and similar safety after 1 year of maintenance were observed with UPA versus VEDO, UST, and TOFA, suggesting a favorable benefit-risk profile for UPA. Despite matched baseline characteristics, differences in trial design and endpoints may persist., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Patterns of disease recurrence on poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor maintenance therapy are unclear and may affect subsequent treatment. This ad hoc subgroup analysis of the phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study evaluated patterns of initial recurrence in patients with advanced ovarian cancer (AOC)., Methods: PRIMA included participants at high risk for disease progression. This ad hoc analysis only evaluated participants randomized to niraparib maintenance without evidence of disease at baseline. The number and site(s) of initial recurrent lesions at investigator-assessed progressive disease (PD) were evaluated., Results: Of the 314 niraparib-treated patients analyzed, 190 developed ≥1 new lesion (median number of new lesions, 1.0; interquartile range, 1-2). In total, 93.2% (177/190) of patients developed 1-3 lesions at first disease progression. The most common sites of recurrence were the peritoneum (30.0% [57/190]), lymph nodes (26.3% [50/190]), and liver (20.5% [39/190]). Similar results were observed when patients with PD were stratified by biomarker status, disease stage at diagnosis, and type of debulking surgery. Patients with homologous recombination-proficient tumors, stage III disease, or a history of primary debulking developed a median of 2.0 new lesions at first progression; patients with homologous recombination-deficient tumors, stage IV disease, or a history of interval debulking developed a median of 1.0 new lesion., Conclusions: Many patients with AOC without lesions at first-line maintenance treatment initiation develop oligometastatic disease at first recurrence. Prospective evaluation is required to determine whether these patients have improved outcomes when local therapies are combined with continuous, systemic, targeted maintenance therapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Mitchell R. Kamrava reports receiving book royalties from Springer, serving on data safety and monitoring boards for Alessa and GT Medical Technologies, and receiving consulting fees from Theragenics and Pfizer. Antonio Gonzalez-Martin reports support from GSK; grants from Roche and TESARO; consulting fees from Alkermes, AstraZeneca, Genmab, ImmunoGen, Novartis, Pfizer/Merck, Roche, Sutro, Amgen, Clovis Oncology, GSK, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Oncoinvent, PharmaMar and Sotio; payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, Roche and GSK; and travel support from AstraZeneca, Roche, Pharmamar and GSK. Bhavana Pothuri reports institutional grant support from AstraZeneca, Celsion, Clovis Oncology, Duality Bio, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, Karyopharm, Merck, Mersana, Seagen, Sutro Biopharma, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Tesaro/GSK, Toray, and VBL Therapeutics; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BioNtech, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GOG Foundation, Lily, Merck, Mersana, Seagen, Sutro Biopharma, Tesaro/GSK, Onconova, and Toray; and travel support from GSK and BioNtech. Ignace Vergote reports consulting fees from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Karyopharm, Mersana, MSD, Molecular Partners, Novocure, Novartis, Oncoinvent, Regeneron, Seagen, Verastem Oncology, Zai Lab, and Zentalis. Whitney Graybill reports institutional research support from NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant (P30 CA008748) and support grants from ArsenalBio, AstraZeneca/Merck, Atara Biotherapeutics/Bayer, Genentech, Genmab, GSK, Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) Foundation, Juno Therapeutics, Kite/Gilead, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Lyell Therapeutics, OnCusp Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sellas Life Sciences, Stemcentrx, Syndax, TapImmune, and TCR2 Therapeutics; participation on advisory boards for Bayer, Carina Biotech, Immunogen, Miltenyi, Loxo, Regeneron, R-Pharm, Seattle Genetics, and Tesaro/GSK; personal fees from GOG Foundation; travel fees from Hitech Health; and service as a noncompensated steering committee member for the DUO-O (olaparib) and PRIMA and Moonstone (niraparib) studies. Colleen McCormick reports participation on advisory boards for GSK, Merck, Immunogen and Clovis. Domenica Lorusso reports medical writing support from Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD and PharmaMar; institutional funding for work in clinical trials from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Incyte, MSD, Novartis, PharmaMar, Roche, and Seagen; consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, MSD, PharmaMar, and Seagen; payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, and PharmaMar; travel for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, PharmaMar, and Roche; participation on Data Safety Monitoring Boards or advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Merck Serono, MSD, Oncoinvent, PharmaMar, Seagen, and Sutro; and is a member of the board of directors for GCIG (no compensation). Gilles Freyer reports consulting fees and payment/honoraria from GSK. David M. O'Malley reports grants from Ajinomoto, BMS, Cerulean Pharma, GOG Foundation, INC Research, InVentiv Health Clinical, Iovance Biotherapeutics, Ludwig Cancer Research, New Mexico Cancer Care Alliance, PRA International, Serono, Stemcentrx, Tracon Pharmaceuticals, and Yale University; has been a consultant/advisory board member for AbbVie, Ambry, Amgen, Array Biopharma, Clovis, EMD Serono, Ergomed, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, Myriad Genetics, Novocure, Regeneron, Tarveda, and VentiRx; was a member of a steering committee for Genentech/Roche and Merck; and received personal fees from Agenus, Eisai, GSK and Immunogen. Whitney York is an employee of GSK. Izabela A. Malinowska is an employee of GSK. Bradley J. Monk reports consulting fees from Agenus, Akeso Biopharma, Amgen, Aravive, Bayer, Elevar, EMD Merck, Genmab/Seagen, GOG Foundation, Gradalis, ImmunoGen, Iovance, Karyopharm, Macrogenics, Mersana, Myriad, Novartis, Novocure, Pfizer, Puma, Regeneron, Sorrento, US Oncology Research, and VBL; and payment or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, Merck, Roche/Genentech and Tesaro/GSK., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Lenalidomide (LEN) and rituximab (RTX) have independently improved progression-free survival (PFS) in CLL, leading to interest in use of LEN + RTX (R2) following induction chemoimmunotherapy. Patients with previously untreated CLL received bendamustine + RTX (BR) for 6 cycles, then 24 cycles of R2. LEN dosing was 5-10 mg daily; RTX was given odd cycles (12 doses). The primary endpoint is PFS; secondary endpoints are response and overall survival. Thirty-six patients enrolled, median age 64.5 years. Twenty-nine received R2; 12 completed a full course R2 (33.3%), 5 completed R2 with premature discontinuation of LEN. Dose reductions/holds were most often for neutropenia. Complete response was achieved in 33.3%. After median >4 years follow-up, 2-year and 3-year PFS were 86.1% and 69.4%. Five-year overall survival was 92.3%. R2 maintenance may improve PFS after BR induction, and a lower dose of 5 mg/day and ≤1 year of R2 may be most tolerable (NCT00974233).

Introduction: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been associated with secondary fungal infections such as mucormycosis. We investigated the relapse rate of mucormycosis and its risk factors., Methodology: A prospective study was conducted on COVID-19-associated mucormycosis (CAM) patients discharged from Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, Tehran, Iran, from July 2021 to February 2022. Patients who received posaconazole as a step-down therapy were included and examined monthly for six months. A relapsing mucormycosis case was defined as a patient with new clinical or radiological symptoms, confirmed by observing aseptate hyphae in the histopathological examination or tissue culture. The characteristics of patients with and without relapse were analyzed and compared., Results: Seventy-seven patients completed the six-month follow-up after discharge. Most patients were male (n = 46, 59.8%), with a mean age of 53.1 years (median 19-84). The most common underlying diseases were diabetes (52/77, 67.5%), hypertension (33/77, 42.8%), and cancer/chemotherapy (25/77, 32.4%). Seven patients (7/77, 9%) were reported as relapsing cases. There was no difference in demographic features and underlying diseases between the groups. A significant difference was seen in the mean duration of posaconazole consumption between patients with and without relapse (24 ± 4.4 days vs. 49.4 ± 4.3 days, respectively, p = 0.015). The primary orbital involvement was also significantly associated with relapse (p = 0.04)., Conclusions: Our findings showed a significant relapse of CAM (9%). A longer duration of posaconazole consumption and completion of treatment for initial orbital involvement in CAM patients are recommended for better patient management and prevention of relapse., Competing Interests: No Conflict of Interest is declared, (Copyright (c) 2024 Mohammadreza Salehi, Sadegh Khodavaisy, Hasti Kamali Sarvestani, Abolfazl Sobati, Farzad Pakdel, Elahe Samiee Fard, Marzieh Darvishi, Mehrdad Shavandi, Cristina Mussini, Zahra Rafat, Kazem Ahmadikia, Azin Tabari.)

Importance: The clinical effects of risankizumab (a monoclonal antibody that selectively targets the p19 subunit of IL-23) for the treatment of ulcerative colitis are unknown., Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of risankizumab when administered as an induction and a maintenance therapy for patients with ulcerative colitis., Design, Setting, and Participants: Two phase 3 randomized clinical trials were conducted. The induction trial was conducted at 261 clinical centers (in 41 countries) and enrolled 977 patients from November 5, 2020, to August 4, 2022 (final follow-up on May 16, 2023). The maintenance trial was conducted at 238 clinical centers (in 37 countries) and enrolled 754 patients from August 28, 2018, to March 30, 2022 (final follow-up on April 11, 2023). Eligible patients had moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis; a history of intolerance or inadequate response to 1 or more conventional therapies, advanced therapies, or both types of therapies; and no prior exposure to risankizumab., Interventions: For the induction trial, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive 1200 mg of risankizumab or placebo administered intravenously at weeks 0, 4, and 8. For the maintenance trial, patients with a clinical response (determined using the adapted Mayo score) after intravenous treatment with risankizumab were randomized 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneous treatment with 180 mg or 360 mg of risankizumab or placebo (no longer receiving risankizumab) every 8 weeks for 52 weeks., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was clinical remission (stool frequency score ≤1 and not greater than baseline, rectal bleeding score of 0, and endoscopic subscore ≤1 without friability) at week 12 for the induction trial and at week 52 for the maintenance trial., Results: Among the 975 patients analyzed in the induction trial (aged 42.1 [SD, 13.8] years; 586/973 [60.1%] were male; and 677 [69.6%] were White), the clinical remission rates at week 12 were 132/650 (20.3%) for 1200 mg of risankizumab and 20/325 (6.2%) for placebo (adjusted between-group difference, 14.0% [95% CI, 10.0%-18.0%], P < .001). Among the 548 patients analyzed in the maintenance trial (aged 40.9 [SD, 14.0] years; 313 [57.1%] were male; and 407 [74.3%] were White), the clinical remission rates at week 52 were 72/179 (40.2%) for 180 mg of risankizumab, 70/186 (37.6%) for 360 mg of risankizumab, and 46/183 (25.1%) for placebo (adjusted between-group difference for 180 mg of risankizumab vs placebo, 16.3% [97.5% CI, 6.1%-26.6%], P < .001; adjusted between-group difference for 360 mg of risankizumab vs placebo, 14.2% [97.5% CI, 4.0%-24.5%], P = .002). No new safety risks were detected in the treatment groups., Conclusion and Relevance: Compared with placebo, risankizumab improved clinical remission rates in an induction trial and in a maintenance trial for patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. Further study is needed to identify benefits beyond the 52-week follow-up., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT03398148 and NCT03398135.

Purpose: This retrospective real-world study compared overall survival (OS) between patients with BRCA wild-type (BRCAwt) recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) who received niraparib second-line maintenance (2LM) versus active surveillance (AS) using target trial emulation, cloning, inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW) methodology to minimize immortal time bias., Methods: Eligible patients from a United States-based, deidentified, electronic health record-derived database were diagnosed with epithelial OC (January 1, 2011-May 31, 2021), were BRCAwt, and completed second-line (2L) therapy (January 1, 2017-March 2, 2022). Patient data were cloned at index (2L last treatment date), assigned to niraparib 2LM and AS cohorts, and censored when treatment deviated from clone assignment. Follow-up was measured from index to earliest of study end (May 31, 2022), last activity, or death. Median OS (mOS) and hazard ratios were estimated from stabilized IPCW Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression models., Results: Overall, 199 patients received niraparib 2LM, and 707 had their care managed with AS. Key characteristics were balanced across cohorts after cloning and stabilized IPCW. Median follow-up was 15.6- and 9.3-months pre-cloning. IPCW mOS was 24.1 months (95% CI: 20.9-29.5) and 18.4 months (95% CI: 15.1-22.8) in niraparib 2LM and AS cohorts, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI: 0.66-0.89)., Conclusions: This real-world study provides supportive evidence of an OS benefit for patients with BRCAwt recurrent OC who received 2LM niraparib monotherapy compared with those whose care was managed with AS. The analytic strategies implemented were useful in minimizing immortal time bias and measured confounding., (© 2024 The Author(s). Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Platinum-based chemotherapy (ChT) has been the standard first-line treatment for metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of induction avelumab followed by avelumab in combination with carboplatin-gemcitabine (carbo/gem) followed by avelumab maintenance. We tested the hypothesis that induction immunotherapy (IO) could enhance the response to ChT and prevent its detrimental effect on immune cells., Materials and Methods: INDUCOMAIN is a multicenter, randomized, investigator-initiated, open-label phase II study evaluating the safety and efficacy of induction avelumab before carboplatin-gemcitabine-avelumab, followed by avelumab maintenance (arm A), compared to carbo/gem (arm B). Eligibility criteria included patients with mUC, no prior systemic therapy, and ineligibility for cisplatin by Galsky criteria. Patients were stratified by the presence/absence of visceral metastasis and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1 versus 2. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety., Results: Eighty-five patients were included and randomized to arm A (n = 42) and arm B (n = 43), respectively. ORR was similar between treatment arms: 59.5% in arm A and 53.5% in arm B (P = 0.57). Fourteen patients (33%) in arm A early progressed/died before or at first response assessment, compared to three patients (7%) in arm B. Median OS was 11.1 months in arm A and 13.2 months in arm B [hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-1.46, P = 0.69]. Median PFS was 6.9 months in arm A versus 7.4 months in arm B (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.61-1.60, P = 0.95). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3-4 occurred in 70.7% of patients in arm A and in 72.1% in arm B. No predictive role of programmed death-ligand 1 expression was found., Conclusions: The hypothesis that induction avelumab could enhance the efficacy of subsequent ChT was not proven. Administering IO alone as induction before ChT is not an adequate strategy., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Previous studies have reported that rituximab (RTX) therapy might be beneficial in reducing relapse rates in patients with IgG4-related disease (IgG4-RD). Therefore, we aimed to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of RTX induction treatment and the effect of RTX maintenance in patients with IgG4-RD., Methods: The protocol was registered in the PROSPERO (CRD42023427352). PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane database, Scopus, and the Web of Science were interrogated to identify studies that evaluated the impact of RTX on prognosis in IgG4-RD. We explored the impact of various subgroups of factors on relapse outcomes and focused on the possible role of maintenance therapy in reducing relapse rates. The pooled incidence of adverse events of RTX therapy and the influencing factors have also been evaluated., Results: Eighteen studies comprising 374 patients (mean age 56.0 ± 8.7 years; male 73.7 %) with a mean follow-up duration of 23.4 ± 16.3 months were included. The pooled estimate of the response rate, complete remission rate, overall relapse rate, adverse event rate, and serious adverse event rate of RTX induction therapy were 97.3 % (95 % CI, 94.7 %-99.1 %), 55.8 % (95 % CI, 39.6 %-71.3 %), 16.9 % (95 % CI, 8.7 %-27.1 %), 31.6 % (95 % CI, 16.7 %-48.9 %) and 3.9 % (95 % CI, 0.8 %-8.9 %), respectively. In subgroup analysis, the pooled relapse rate was significantly lower in studies with maintenance than without maintenance (2.8% vs 21.5 %, p < 0.01). Pooled Kaplan-Meier relapse curves also demonstrated that RTX maintenance therapy provided a better prognosis., Conclusions: RTX induction therapy appears to have satisfactory efficacy in the induction of remission in IgG4-RD. In addition, prophylactic RTX maintenance therapy after induction may be beneficial in preventing relapse of IgG4-RD., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Platinum-based chemotherapy has been the cornerstone of first-line treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma for decades, based on its proven efficacy and well-characterized safety profile. Although enfortumab vedotin (EV) plus pembrolizumab showed superior efficacy versus platinum-based chemotherapy in the EV-302 phase 3 trial, common and potentially cumulative toxicities associated with EV plus pembrolizumab may make this combination less suitable for some patients, such as those with pre-existing neuropathy, hyperglycemia, or hepatic impairment, or patients likely to have favorable outcomes with platinum-based chemotherapy. The availability of EV plus pembrolizumab in various countries may also be limited by financial considerations. Thus, platinum-based chemotherapy is likely to remain a valuable option for advanced urothelial carcinoma. Eligibility for cisplatin- or carboplatin-based regimens can be determined by assessing renal function, performance status, and specific comorbidities. In cisplatin-eligible and -ineligible patients without disease progression following platinum-based chemotherapy, avelumab first-line maintenance is standard of care based on findings from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 phase 3 trial, which showed that avelumab first-line maintenance plus best supportive care prolonged overall survival and progression-free survival compared with best supportive care alone across clinically relevant subgroups. Adverse events associated with avelumab were generally consistent with those observed with other immune checkpoint inhibitors, and long-term follow-up showed no new safety concerns with prolonged treatment. Efficacy benefits and safety profiles were similar in patients who received avelumab first-line maintenance after cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy. The effectiveness and safety of avelumab first-line maintenance have been confirmed in several real-world studies. Overall, these data support the use of avelumab first-line maintenance for all platinum-treated patients without disease progression. In this podcast, we discuss the evolving role of platinum-based chemotherapy in this disease setting in the context of EV-302 trial results and describe practical considerations in patients receiving first-line cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy followed by avelumab maintenance therapy., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Evidence on maintenance therapy following frontline induction is sparse in primary light-chain amyloidosis (AL), especially for those who do not undergo autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT)., Methods: We enrolled primary AL patients who achieved at least haematologic very good partial response (VGPR) by the 4th month at the frontline from December 2008 to June 2023 at Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University. Those who followed maintenance therapy were identified as the maintenance group ( n  = 44), whereas those entering the observational phase were classified as the observational group ( n  = 24)., Results: After 7.2(interquartile range, 4.7-18.6) months of maintenance therapy, 9(20.5%), 14(31.8%) and 5 (11.4%) patients achieved improvement in haematologic, cardiac and renal response respectively. Five (11.4%) patients had minimal residual disease (MRD) response conversion from positive to negative based on maintenance therapy. In the observation group, none of the patients had haematologic response improvement, with 3(12.5%) and 1(4.2%) patient showing cardiac and renal response improvement during follow-up., Conclusion: This study identified the clinical benefits of maintenance therapy in patients with AL who did not undergo ASCT in real-world practice.

Between December 2014 and May 2020, the United States Food and Drug Administration approved 9 indications for poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor use in ovarian cancer. Between June 2022 and September 2022, all 3 indications for PARP inhibitor treatment of recurrent ovarian cancer were withdrawn. Between November 2022 and September 2023, all 3 indications for PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy in recurrent ovarian cancer were restricted. The 3 indications for PARP inhibitor maintenance therapy in newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer are unchanged. This article reviews the timelines and data leading to regulatory changes for PARP inhibitor use in ovarian cancer in the United States., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Nocardiosis in patients after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is rare, but is associated with a significant mortality risk. Although trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMX) remains the cornerstone of nocardiosis treatment, optimal alternative therapies for patients intolerant to TMP/SMX are not well-established. Herein, we report a case of disseminated nocardiosis with bacteremia and multiple lesions in the lungs and brain caused by Nocardia farcinica, in a 60-year-old man who had previously undergone allogeneic HSCT and was receiving immunosuppressants for severe chronic graft-versus-host disease. The patient received atovaquone for the prophylaxis of Pneumocystis pneumonia because of a previous serious allergic reaction to TMP/SMX. The patient was initially treated with imipenem/cilastatin and amikacin, which were later switched to ceftriaxone and amikacin based on the results of antimicrobial susceptibility testing. After switching to oral levofloxacin and a standard dose of minocycline, the patient experienced a single recurrence of brain abscesses. However, after switching to oral moxifloxacin and high-dose minocycline, the patient did not experience any relapses during the subsequent two years and seven months of treatment. In treating nocardiosis with brain abscesses, it is crucial to select oral antibiotics based on the antimicrobial susceptibility test results and pharmacokinetics, especially when TMP/SMX is contraindicated. A combination of oral moxifloxacin and high-dose minocycline could be a promising alternative therapy., (Copyright © 2024 Japanese Society of Chemotherapy, Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases, and Japanese Society for Infection Prevention and Control. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. Biomarkers such as tumor protein 53 ( TP53 ) in endometrial cancer can integrate novel strategies for improved and individualized treatment that could impact patient outcomes. In an exploratory analysis of the phase III ENGOT-EN5/GOG-3055/SIENDO study of selinexor maintenance monotherapy 80 mg in advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer, a pre-specified subgroup of patients with TP53 wild type (wt) endometrial cancer showed preliminary activity at long-term follow-up with a generally manageable safety profile (median progression-free survival 27.4 months vs 5.2 months placebo, HR=0.41)., Primary Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of selinexor compared with placebo as maintenance therapy in patients with advanced or recurrent TP53 wt endometrial cancer., Study Hypothesis: Selinexor administered at 60 mg weekly as maintenance therapy will show manageable safety and maintain efficacy in patients with TP53 wt advanced/recurrent endometrial cancer after systemic therapy versus placebo., Trial Design: This is a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of selinexor as a maintenance therapy in patients with advanced or recurrent TP53 wt endometrial cancer., Major Inclusion/exclusion Criteria: Eligible patients must have histologically confirmed endometrial cancer, TP53 wt confirmed by next-generation sequencing, completed at least 12 weeks of platinum-based therapy with or without immunotherapy, with confirmed partial response or complete response, and primary Stage IV disease or at first relapse., Primary Endpoint: The primary endpoint is investigator-assessed progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1 in the intent-to-treat population., Sample Size: A total of 220 patients will be enrolled., Estimated Dates for Completing Accrual and Presenting Results: Accrual is expected to be completed in 2024 with presentation of results in 2025., Trial Registration: NCT05611931., Competing Interests: Competing interests: IV reports consulting for Agenus, Akesobio, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Elevar Therapeutics, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genmab, GSK, Immunogen, Jazzpharma, Karyopharm, Mersana, MSD, Novocure, Novartis, Oncoinvent, OncXerna, Sanofi, Regeneron, Seagen, Sotio, Verastem Oncology, Zentalis. APF has received grants/research support from AstraZeneca, Pharmamar, GSK (paid to the institution); participation in a company-sponsored speaker’s bureau for AstraZeneca, MSD, Eisai, GSK, Clovis, Pharmamar, Pharma&; and honoraria or consultation fees from GSK, Clovis, AstraZeneca, Pharmamar, Roche, MSD, Ability Pharma. BJM has received honorarium and consulting fees from Acrivon, Adaptimmune, Agenus, Akeso Bio, Amgen, Bayer, Elevar, EMD Merck, Genmab/Seagen, GOG Foundation, Gradalis, Heng Rui, ImmunoGen, Karyopharm, Iovance, Laekna Health Care, Mersana, Myriad, Novartis, Novocure, OncoC4, Panavance, Pieris, Pfizer, Puma, Regeneron, Sorrento, US Oncology Research, VBL, Verastem, Zentalis; and speaker/consultant fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Easai, Merck, Roche/Genentech, TESARO/GSK. TH reports scientific advisory board participation: Aadi, AZ, Caris, Clovis, Corcept, Epsilogen, Eisai, Genentech, GSK, J&J, Merck, Seagen. GV reports grants or contracts from advisory boards of AZ, MSD, Clovis, GSK Pharmamar, Eisai. Consulting fees, honoraria, and support for attending meetings from advisory boards of AZ, MSD, Clovis, GSK, Pharmamar, Eisai. DC has nothing to disclose. NC reports fees for advisory board membership for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, GSK, Immunogen, Mersana, MSD/Merck, Nuvation Bio, Oncxerna, Pieris, Roche, Novocure; fees as an invited speaker for AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD/Merck, Eisai; institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, Roche, GSK; non-remunerated activities as member of the ESMO Guidelines Steering Committee and chair of the Scientific Committee of ACTO (Alleanza contro il tumore Ovarico). BP reports grants, advisory board, and consultant fees; institutional PI for industry sponsored trials from Tesaro/GSK, AstraZeneca, Merck, Genetech/Roche, Celsion, Karyopharm, Mersana, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Toray, Imab, Sutro, SeaGen, Clovis Oncology. Compensated advisory boards include Tesaro/GSK, AstraZeneca, Lily, Mersana, Onconova, Merck, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Toray, Sutro, Deciphera, Imab, SeaGen, GOG Foundation. JS reports research funding: Institution: AZ, Clovis Oncology, Merck, Bayer, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Tesaro, MSD Oncology, Roche. Consulting/advisory boards: AZ, Clovis Oncology, PharmaMar, Merck, Pfizer, Tesaro, MSD Oncology, Lilly, Novocure, J&J, Roche, Ingress Health, Riemser, Sobi, GSK, Novartis; honoraria: AZ, Eisai, Clovis Oncology, Olympus Medical Systems, J&J, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Teva, Tesaro, MSD Oncology, GSK, Bayer. Travel, accommodation, expenses: AZ, Clovis Oncology, PharmaMar, Roche Pharma AG, Tesaro, MSD Oncology, Olympus. JK has nothing to disclose. JB reports participation on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Clovis, Mersana, OncoC4, Immingen. Speaker's bureau for AstraZeneca, Merck. CP reports honoraria from Novartis, Astra Zeneca, Genesis, MSD Oncology, Servier, WinMedica; has received fees for consulting or advisory role from Amgen, Astellas, BioPharma, Roche Hellas, Astra Zeneca; and research funding from Roche Hellas, WinMedica, Servier. TvG has received grants/research supports (all paid to institution) from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Roche; advisory board (all paid to institution): AstraZeneca, BioNTech, Eisai, GSK, ImmunoGen, Incyte, Karyopharm, MSD, OncXerna, Seagen, Tubulis, Zentalis; participation in a company sponsored speaker’s bureau (all paid to institution): GSK, ImmunoGen, MSD. DR has received fees for advisory boards from Mersana, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, ProfoundBio, Eisai, Immunogen. Grants/research supports paid to institution from GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Celsion, Mersana, Hookipa, Syros, AstraZeneca, Shattuck Labs, ProfoundBio, CanariaBio, Immunogen, Karyopharm. MMC has nothing to disclose. YA has received grants/research supports from AstraZeneca; honoraria or consultation fees from AstraZeneca; MSD, Eisai, GSK. Consulting or advisory role with AstraZeneca, Eisai, MSD, GSK, Pfizer. MRM has received grants/research supports from AstraZeneca (institution); Boehringer Ingelheim (institution); Pfizer (institution); Tesaro (institution); honoraria or consultation fees from honoraria: Advaxis, AstraZeneca, Cerulean Pharma, Clovis Oncology, Novocure, Pfizer, Roche, Tesaro; consulting or advisory role: AstraZeneca, BioCad, Cerulean Pharma, Clovis Oncology, Genmab, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Novocure, Pfizer, Tesaro; stock shareholder: Karyopharm Therapeutics, SeraCare; and leadership: Karyopharm Therapeutics. KL is an employee of Karyopharm Therapeutics. PK is an employee of Karyopharm Therapeutics. BS reports consulting or advisory roles for Genentech, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Incyte, Clovis Oncology, Myriad Genetic Laboratories Inc., GlaxoSmithKline LLC, AbbVie Inc., Seagen Inc., Novocure Inc., Novartis, Immunogen, Agenus, Merck Sharp & Dohme, GOG Foundation. RLC has received grant/research support from AstraZeneca/MedImmune (institution), Clovis Oncology (institution), Merck (institution), Roche/Genentech (an immediate family member), Immunogen (institution), Mirati Therapeutics (institution), Amgen (institution), Pfizer (institution), Lilly (institution), Regeneron (institution); honoraria or consulting fees from Clovis Oncology, Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Genmab, OncoMed, Immunogen, AbbVie, Agenus, Novocure, Merck, OncXerna Therapeutics, Alkermes, Gradalis, GlaxoSmithKline, Eisai, GOG Foundation, Karyopharm Therapeutics; stock shareholder from McKesson; and is employed by US Oncology. Leadership: Onxeo. Travel, accommodation, expenses: Merck, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Array BioPharma, Clovis Oncology, Roche/Genentech, Research to Practice, GOG Foundation, Clovis Oncology, Sotio, Vaniam Group., (© IGCS and ESGO 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To evaluate the impact of age on the efficacy and safety of niraparib first-line maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer with a complete/partial response to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy., Methods: Post hoc analysis of the phase 3 PRIMA/ENGOT-OV26/GOG-3012 study (NCT02655016). Patients in the intent-to-treat population were categorized according to age at baseline (<65 years vs ≥65 years), and progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) were evaluated for each age subgroup (clinical cutoff date, May 17, 2019). Safety findings were also evaluated according to a fixed starting dose (FSD) or an individualized starting dose (ISD)., Results: Of 733 randomized patients, 289 (39.4%) were ≥65 years (190 niraparib, 99 placebo) at baseline. Median PFS (niraparib vs placebo) and hazard ratios (95% CI) were similar in patients aged <65 years (13.9 vs 8.2 months; HR, 0.61 [0.47-0.81]) and ≥65 years (13.7 vs 8.1 months; HR, 0.53 [0.39-0.74]). The incidences of any-grade and grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar across age subgroups; in the niraparib arm, TEAEs leading to dose discontinuation occurred in 7.8% of patients <65 years and 18.4% of patients ≥65 years. ISD use lowered the incidence of grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia events in niraparib-treated patients compared with the FSD (<65 years: 42.8% vs 18.0%; ≥65 years 57.0% vs 26.1%). HRQOL was comparable across age subgroups., Conclusion: Niraparib efficacy, safety, and HRQOL were generally comparable across age subgroups, although patients ≥65 years had a higher rate of discontinuations due to TEAEs. ISD use reduced grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia events regardless of age., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Valabrega reports consulting fees from GSK; honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, and MSD; travel support from AstraZeneca and PharmaMar; and participation in advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, and MSD. Dr. Pothuri reports institutional grant support from AstraZeneca, Celsion, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Genentech/Roche, GSK, I-Mab, Immunogen, Incyte, Karyopharm, Merck, Mersana, Onconova, SeaGen, Sutro, and Toray; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GOG Foundation, GSK, Merck, and Seagen; support for attending meetings from GOG Partners; and advisory board fees from Arquer Diagnostics, Atossa, Deciphera, Eisai, Elevar Therapeutics, GOG Foundation, I-Mab, Immunogen, Lily, Merck, Mersana, Natera, Onconova, Regeneron, Sutro Biopharma, Tesaro/GSK, Toray, and VBL Therapeutics. Dr. Oaknin reports institutional grants from AbbVie Deutschland, Advaxis, Aeterna Zentaris, Amgen, Aprea Therapeutics AB, BMS, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Immunogen, MSD de España SA, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, PharmaMar SA, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Tesaro; consulting fees from Agenus, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Exelixis, EMD Serono, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Genmab, GSK, ImmunoGen, Iteos, MSD de España SA, Mersana Therapeutics, Novocure, OncXerna Therapeutics, PharmaMar, Regeneron, Shattuck Labs, Seagen, and Sutro Biopharma; honoraria from Asociación Colombiada de Ginecológos Oncólogos, AstraZeneca, ESO, GSK, Medscape, NSGO, Peerview, and Peervoice; individual travel support from AstraZeneca, PharmaMar, and Roche; and advisory board participation for Agenus, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Corcept Therapeutics, Deciphera Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Exelixis, EMD Serono, F. Hoffmann–La Roche, Genmab, GSK, ImmunoGen, Iteos, MSD de España SA, Mersana Therapeutics, Novocure, OncXerna Therapeutics, PharmaMar, Regeneron, Seagen, Shattuck Labs, and Sutro Biopharma. Dr. Graybill reports consulting and speaker fees from GSK. Dr. Sánchez reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, and MSD; honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK, and MSD; and travel support from AstraZeneca, GSK, and MSD. Dr. McCormick reports personal fees for advisory boards for Clovis, GSK, ImmunoGen, and Merck. Dr. Baurain reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, GSK, Immunocore, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Sun Pharma. Dr. Tinker reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, and Merck and travel support from GSK. Dr. Denys reports an institutional research grant from Gilead; consulting fees from Gilead and GSK; honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Leo Pharma, MSD, and Roche; travel support from AstraZeneca, Gilead, GSK, MSD, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Roche, and Teva; and participation on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Menarini, MSD, and Pfizer. Dr. O'Cearbhaill reports institutional research support from NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant (P30 CA008748) and support grants from AstraZeneca/Merck, Atara Biotherapeutics/Bayer, Genentech, Genmab, GSK, Gynecologic Oncology Group Foundation, Juno Therapeutics, Kite/Gilead, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Regeneron, Sellas Life Sciences, StemcentRx, Syndax, TapImmune, and TCR2 Therapeutics; participating in advisory boards with Bayer, Carina Biotech, Fresenius Kabi, Immunogen, Regeneron, R-Pharm, Seattle Genetics, and Tesaro/GSK; personal fees from GOG Foundation; travel fees from Hitech Health; and service as a noncompensated steering committee member for the DUO-O (olaparib) and PRIMA and Moonstone (niraparib) studies. Dr. Hietanen reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, and MSD and honoraria from AstraZeneca and GSK. Dr. Moore reports institutional grants from Angle Plc and Fujirebio Diagnostics and personal fees from Fujirebio Diagnostics. Dr. Knudsen has nothing to disclose. Dr. de La Motte Rouge reports receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Gilead, GSK, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi; receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, NetCancer, and Pfizer; and travel support from Gilead, MSD, and Pfizer. Dr. Heitz reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, GSK, Roche, and Tesaro and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, GSK, Roche, and Tesaro. Dr. Levy has nothing to disclose. Dr. Monk reports consulting fees from Agenus, Akeso Biopharma, Amgen, Aravive, Bayer, Elevar, EMD Merck, Genmab/Seagen, GOG Foundation, Gradalis, ImmunoGen, Iovance, Karyopharm, MacroGenics, Mersana, Myriad, Novartis, Novocure, Pfizer, Puma, Regeneron, Sorrento, US Oncology Research, and VBL and speakers' bureau honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Eisai, Merck, Roche/Genentech, and Tesaro/GSK. Dr. González-Martín reports for different educational or advisory-related activities from Alkermes, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Clovis, Genmab, GSK, Hedera Dx, Immunogen, Illumina, Mersana, MSD, Novartis, Novocure, Oncoinvent, PharmaMar, Roche, Seagen, Sotio, Sutro, Takeda, and Tubulis. Ms. York is a current employee of GSK. Dr. Gupta is a former employee of GSK and Mersana Therapeutics and is currently an employee of Cullinan Oncology., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The JAVELIN Bladder 100 phase 3 trial showed that avelumab first-line maintenance + best supportive care significantly prolonged overall survival and progression-free survival versus best supportive care alone in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma who were progression-free following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. We report findings from J-AVENUE (NCT05431777), a real-world study of avelumab first-line maintenance therapy in Japan., Methods: Medical charts of patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma without disease progression following first-line platinum-based chemotherapy, who received avelumab maintenance between February and November 2021, were reviewed. Patients were followed until June 2022. The primary endpoint was patient characteristics; secondary endpoints included time to treatment failure and progression-free survival., Results: In 79 patients analyzed, median age was 72 years (range, 44-86). Primary tumor site was upper tract in 45.6% and bladder in 54.4%. The most common first-line chemotherapy regimen was cisplatin + gemcitabine (63.3%). Median number of chemotherapy cycles received was four. Best response to chemotherapy was complete response in 10.1%, partial response in 58.2%, and stable disease in 31.6%. Median treatment-free interval before avelumab was 4.9 weeks. With avelumab first-line maintenance therapy, the disease control rate was 58.2%, median time to treatment failure was 4.6 months (95% CI, 3.3-6.4), and median progression-free survival was 6.1 months (95% CI, 3.6-9.7)., Conclusions: Findings from J-AVENUE show the effectiveness of avelumab first-line maintenance in patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma in Japan in clinical practice, with similar progression-free survival to JAVELIN Bladder 100 and previous real-world studies, supporting its use as a standard of care., (© 2024 The Authors. International Journal of Urology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of The Japanese Urological Association.)

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of anlotinib as maintenance therapy in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma following first-line chemotherapy., Methods: This retrospective study enrolled 154 patients with advanced biliary tract cancer admitted to the hospital between January 2020 and December 2022. All patients received first-line intravenous chemotherapy with gemcitabine combined with cisplatin, oxaliplatin, or tegafur. Among the 106 patients who achieved disease control, 47 received oral anlotinib hydrochloride (12 mg daily, 2 weeks on/1 week off) as maintenance therapy. Clinical efficacy, including ORR, DCR, DOR, PFS, and OS, was compared between the anlotinib maintenance and non-maintenance groups. Subgroup analysis based on NLR levels was also performed., Results: Among the 47 anlotinib maintenance patients, the ORR was 21.28% and the DCR was 51.06%. The median DOR was 36 weeks, and the median PFS was 43 weeks in the anlotinib group, versus 28 weeks and 38 weeks in the non-maintenance group, respectively. The median OS was not reached in the anlotinib group but was 48 weeks in the non-maintenance group. Patients receiving anlotinib maintenance had significantly longer DOR, PFS, and OS (all p < 0.05). Patients with low NLR levels had better survival benefits from anlotinib., Conclusion: Maintenance therapy with anlotinib demonstrates potential efficacy and a reliable safety profile in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma following first-line treatment. The efficacy of anlotinib therapy appears to be influenced by NLR levels. Further validation with larger sample sizes is warranted to strengthen the robustness and reliability of the results., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Maintenance therapy could significantly improve the prognosis of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving chemotherapy. Anlotinib is effective, tolerable, and convenient in administration as a third-line treatment for NSCLC. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of maintenance therapy with anlotinib after platinum-based induction chemotherapy for patients with advanced NSCLC., Methods: This pooled analysis of 2 multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 clinical trials (ALTER-L014 and ALTER-L011) enrolled patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and without known sensitive mutations in China between September 2018 and January 2021. The primary outcome was progression-free survival. The secondary outcomes were objective response rate, disease control rate, overall survival, and safety., Results: The data of 23 patients were pooled, with 15 from ALTER-L014 and 8 from ALTER-L011. At the cutoff date of June 13, 2021, the median progression-free survival since the start of maintenance therapy was 5.95 (95% confidence interval, 4.30-8.80) months. Nineteen patients had stable disease, 1 had a partial response and 3 had progressive disease. The objective response rate was 4.35%, while disease control rate was 86.96%. The median overall survival of the patients since the start of maintenance therapy was 18.60 (95% confidence interval, 6.87-22.80) months. The incidence of adverse events of grade ≥ 3 was 21.7%., Conclusion: Anlotinib might offer a new option for maintenance treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC without known sensitive mutations after standard first-line platinum-based chemotherapy., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Purpose: Continuous lenalidomide maintenance treatment after autologous stem cell transplantation delivers improvement in progression free and overall survival among newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients and has been the standard of care in the UK since March 2021. However, there is scant information about its impact on patients' day-to-day lives. This service evaluation aimed to qualitatively assess patients receiving lenalidomide treatment at a cancer centre in London, in order that the service might better align with needs and expectations of patients., Methods: We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews among myeloma patients who were on continuous lenalidomide maintenance treatment at a specialist cancer centre in London. Members of the clinical team identified potentially eligible participants to take part, and convenience sampling was used to select 10 male and 10 female patients, median age of 58 (range, 45-71). The median treatment duration was 11 months (range, 1-60 months). Participants were qualitatively interviewed following the same semi-structured interview guide, which was designed to explore patient experience and insights of lenalidomide. Reflexive thematic analysis was used for data analysis., Results: Four overarching themes were as follows: (i) lenalidomide: understanding its role and rationale; (ii) reframing the loss of a treatment-free period to a return to normal life; (iii) the reality of being on lenalidomide: balancing hopes with hurdles; (iv) gratitude and grievances: exploring mixed perceptions of care and communication. Results will be used to enhance clinical services by tailoring communication to better meet patients' preferences when making treatment decisions., Conclusion: This study highlights that most patients feel gratitude for being offered continuous lenalidomide and perceive it as alleviating some fears concerning relapse. It reveals variations in side effects in different age groups; younger patients reported no/negligible side effects, whilst several older patients with comorbidities described significant symptom burden, occasionally leading to treatment discontinuation which caused distress at the perceived loss of prolonged remission. Future research should prioritise understanding the unique needs of younger patients living with multiple myeloma., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: To examine patient barriers and facilitators to PARP inhibitor (PARP-I) maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer. PARP-I improves survival in ovarian cancer, but these multi-year therapies cost around $100,000 annually and are under-prescribed., Methods: We recruited patients with ovarian cancer treated with PARP-I maintenance therapy at an academic health system for a semi-structured interview. Patient demographics, including genetics and PARP-I cost, were self-reported. We assessed patient experiences with barriers and facilitators of PARP-I usage. Two team members used a thematic approach to analyze and identify key themes., Results: In May 2022, we interviewed 10 patients (mean age = 65 years; 80% White; 60% with a germline genetic mutation). Patients paid on average $227.50 monthly for PARP-I, straining resources for some participants. While sampled patients were insured, all patients identified having no or inadequate insurance as a major barrier to PARP-I. At the same time, all participants prioritized clinical effectiveness over costs of care. Patients identified PARP-I delivery from specialty pharmacies, separate and different from other medications, as a potential barrier, but each had been able to navigate delivery. Patients expressed significant initial side effects of PARP-I as a potential barrier yet reported clinician communication and prompt dose reduction as facilitating continuation., Conclusions: Patients identified cost, restrictive pharmacy benefits, and initial side effects as barriers to PARP-I usage. Having insurance and a supportive care team were identified as facilitators. Enhancing communication about PARP-I cost and side effects could improve patient experience and receipt of evidence-based maintenance therapy in ovarian cancer., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Drs. Smith and Haggerty have received institutional grant funding from GSK unrelated to this work, and Dr. Smith received an honorarium from Total Health Conferences as an invited speaker outside the submitted work. Dr. Rendle reported receiving and grants from Pfizer and AstraZeneca paid to her institution, personal fees from Merck for serving as a scientific consultant, and honoraria and travel paid as invited speaker from MJH Life Sciences outside the submitted work. Dr. Ko received grants from Tesaro, Faeth, and Bristol-Meyers Squibb outside the submitted work. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to report., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To compare oncologic outcomes of secondary cytoreductive surgery (SCS) before and after FDA approval of Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) and bevacizumab maintenance therapies for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PS-ROC)., Methods: Patients who underwent SCS for first recurrence of PS-ROC from 1/1/2013-1/1/2020 were identified. Exclusion criteria included prior chemotherapy for recurrence, bowel obstruction procedures, and palliative surgery. Data were dichotomized pre/post 1/2017, relative to FDA approval of PARPi and bevacizumab maintenance for ROC. Second progression-free survival (PFS2), the primary endpoint, was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method., Results: Overall, 245 patients underwent SCS-131 (53%) pre- and 114 (47%) post-approval. Most patients had high-grade serous tumors (83% and 90%, respectively; p = 0.13). Deleterious BRCA1/2 alterations were identified in 27% (32/120) and 28% (32/113) of tested patients, respectively (p = 0.88). Disease-free intervals pre- and post-approval were: 6-12 months, 16% and 18%; 12-30 months, 56% and 59%; and >30 months, 28% and 24%, respectively (p = 0.73). Overall, 85% and 86% of patients, respectively, achieved complete gross resection (CGR; p > 0.99). PARPi maintenance use increased from 3.8% to 27% (p < 0.001) following approval, and bevacizumab from 1.5% to 12% (p < 0.001). Median PFS2 was 19 and 20.1 months, respectively. In the post group, 1-year PFS2 rate was 84.5% (95% CI, 75.7-90.4%) for patients with CGR vs 56.2% (95% CI, 29.5-76.2%) for those with residual disease; 3-year PFS2 rates were 31.3% (95% CI, 21.6-41.4%) and 12.5% (95% CI, 2.1-32.8%), respectively (p = 0.001)., Conclusions: CGR during SCS is associated with improved PFS2 compared to suboptimal resection. Prospective randomized trials are warranted to elucidate the role of SCS as more therapeutics become available., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest D.S. Chi reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, UptoDate, Biom'Up, Apyx Medical Group, and Verthemia; he also has stock in Verthemia. R.N. Grisham reports honoraria from GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), AstraZeneca, Natera, Springworks, Corcept, MJH, and PER. R.E. O'Cearbhaill reports research funding paid to the institution from Bayer/Celgene/Juno, Arsenalbio, Tesaro/GSK, Merck, Ludwig Cancer Institute, Abbvie/StemCentrx, Regeneron, TCR2 Therapeutics, Atara Biotherapeutics, MarkerTherapeutics, Syndax Pharmaceuticals, Genmab/Seagen Therapeutics, Genentech, Alkermes, Kite Pharma, Acrivon and Gynecologic Oncology Foundation, Lyell Immunopharma. She also reports honoraria for lectures from GSK, Curio/Onclive/PER/MJH/Aptitude Health, SITC, Gynecologic Oncology Canada, and the Society of Gynecologic Oncology. She also reports travel/meeting support from Hitech Health, Gathering Around Cancer, Ireland, and the GOG Foundation. She also reports unpaid Steering Committee participation for AstraZeneca, GSK, and Acrivon, as well as unpaid advisory roles for Carina Biotech and Link Therapeutics. She has served on the Advisory Boards of SeaGen, Tesaro/GSK, Regeneron, Immunogenicity, R-Pharm, Fresenius Kabi, Miltenyi, 2seventybio, and Bayer., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The randomized, open-label, phase III LYNK-003 study assessed the efficacy of first-line maintenance olaparib, alone or in combination with bevacizumab, versus bevacizumab plus a fluoropyrimidine in participants with unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We present results of the prespecified interim futility analysis., Methods: Eligible participants were ≥18 years of age with unresectable or mCRC that had not progressed after induction with first-line bevacizumab plus 5-fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin plus leucovorin (FOLFOX) or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX). Participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to olaparib plus bevacizumab, olaparib alone, or bevacizumab plus a fluoropyrimidine (5-fluorouracil or capecitabine). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1 by central review., Results: Between August 2020 and May 2022, 309 participants were assigned to olaparib plus bevacizumab (n = 104), olaparib (n = 107), or bevacizumab plus fluoropyrimidine (n = 98). At interim analysis, with a median follow-up of 7.6 months (range 0.1-19.7 months), the median PFS was 3.7 months (95% CI 2.8-5.3) with olaparib plus bevacizumab (HR 1.52; 95% CI 1.02-2.27; P = 0.982) and 3.5 months (95% CI 2.0-3.7) with olaparib (HR 2.11; 95% CI 1.39-3.18; P = 0.999) versus 5.6 months (95% CI 3.8-5.9) with bevacizumab plus fluoropyrimidine. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 64 (62%), 52 (50%), and 57 (59%) participants, respectively. There were no treatment-related deaths., Conclusion: The LYNK-003 study was stopped prematurely as criteria for futility were met. Maintenance olaparib with or without bevacizumab did not demonstrate clinical efficacy compared with bevacizumab plus a fluoropyrimidine., Gov Registration: NCT04456699., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Atsuo Takashima reports grants and payment or honoraria from Lilly, Ono Pharmaceutical, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharma, Takeda, and Merck Serono. Pilar García Alfonso reports honoraria for speakers’ bureau from, travel support from, and advisory board participation for Amgen, Roche, Merck Serono, MSD, Sanofi-Aventis, Pierre Fabre, and Servier. Matthew Burge reports consulting fees from Servier; payment or honoraria and travel support from MSD; and advisory board participation for BMS, MSD, and AstraZeneca. Takayuki Yoshino reports honoraria from Bayer, Chugai, Merck Biopharma, MSD, Ono, and Takeda; consulting fees from Sumitomo Corporation; and institutional research funding from Amgen, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, FALCO Biosystems, Genomedia Inc., Molecular Health, MSD, Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim, Ono, Pfizer, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, Sysmex, and Taiho. Tae Won Kim reports institutional research funding from Genentech. Karen Cui reports stock or stock options with AstraZeneca. Chenxiang Li reports employment with Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (MSD). Rishi Jain reports employment with Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA and stock or stock options with Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. David Adelberg reports employment with Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA and stock or stock options with Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. Julien Taieb reports consulting fees and honoraria for speakers’ bureau from Amgen, BMS, AstraZeneca, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, and Servier. Raimundo Manneh, Ali Ayberk Beşen, Yong Sang Hong, Pieter-Jan Cuyle, and Patricio Yanez report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The bispecific T cell-binding antibody blinatumomab (CD19/CD3) is widely and successfully used for the treatment of children with relapsed or refractory B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (BCP-ALL). Here, we report the efficacy of a single course of blinatumomab instead of consolidation chemotherapy to eliminate minimal residual disease (MRD) and maintain stable MRD-negativity in children with primary BCP-ALL.Between February 2020 and November 2022, 177 children with non-high-risk BCP-ALL were enrolled in the ALL-MB 2019 pilot study (NCT04723342). Patients received the usual risk-adapted induction therapy according to the ALL-MB 2015 protocol. Those who achieved a complete remission at the end of induction (EOI) received treatment with blinatumomab immediately after induction at a dose of 5 μg/m 2 /day for 7 days and 21 days at a dose of 15 μg/m 2 /day, followed by 12 months of maintenance therapy. MRD was measured using multicolor flow cytometry (MFC) at the EOI, then immediately after blinatumomab treatment, and then four times during maintenance therapy at 3-month intervals.All 177 patients successfully completed induction therapy and achieved a complete hematological remission. In 174 of these, MFC-MRD was measured at the EOI. 143 patients (82.2%) were MFC-MRD negative and the remaining 31 patients had varying degrees of MFC-MRD positivity.MFC-MRD was assessed in all 176 patients who completed the blinatumomab course. With one exception, all patients achieved MFC-MRD negativity after blinatumomab, regardless of the MFC-MRD score at EOI. One adolescent girl with high MFC-MRD positivity at EOI remained MFC-MRD positive. Of 175 patients who had completed 6 months of maintenance therapy, MFC-MRD data were available for 156 children. Of these, 155 (99.4%) were MFC-MRD negative. Only one boy with t(12;21) (p13;q22)/ ETV6::RUNX1 became MFC-MRD positive again. The remaining 174 children had completed the entire therapy. MFC-MRD was examined in 154 of them, and 153 were MFC-MRD negative. A girl with hypodiploid BCP-ALL showed a reappearance of MFC-MRD with subsequent relapse.In summary, a single 28-day course of blinatumomab immediately after induction, followed by 12 months of maintenance therapy, is highly effective in achieving MRD-negativity in children with newly diagnosed non-high risk BCP-ALL and maintaining MRD-negative remission at least during the treatment period., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Charaterization of the plasma concentrations of antiretrovirals in a 4-days-a-week maintenance treatment strategy in the ANRS-170-QUATUOR study., Methods: Patients were randomized in two groups receiving triple therapy taken 4-days-ON and 3-days-OFF (4/7) or continuous therapy (7/7). Plasma antiretroviral concentrations were monitored during the 'ON-treatment period' (Day 3 or 4 of the 4-day treatment block) and the 'OFF-treatment period' (Day 3 of the 3-day drug cessation) for the 4/7 group, or before the daily drug intake for the 7/7 group, until week-48 (W48). After W48, all patients switched to the 4/7 strategy and were followed until W96., Results: W0 measured concentrations were comparable in both groups, except for raltegravir, concentrations of which were higher in the 4/7 group, and were all above the values usually recommended to be effective in therapeutic drug monitoring. Comparison of ON-period median concentrations between the two groups showed a statistical difference for rilpivirine [88 ng/mL (interquartile range (IQR) = 64-112) for 4/7 arm versus 130 ng/mL (82-160) for 7/7 arm, P < 0.001] and tenofovir [tenofovir disoproxil fumarate: 93 ng/mL (73-135) for 4/7 arm versus 117 ng/mL (83-160) for 7/7 arm, P < 0.001; tenofovir alafenamide: 11 ng/mL (7-15) for 4/7 arm versus 14 ng/mL (11-18) for 7/7 arm, P = 0.001]. Median OFF concentrations were significantly lower (P < 0.001) at the 48 week analysis for all medications except for raltegravir (P = 0.493) and atazanavir (P = 0.105), for which the numbers of patients were very small., Conclusions: The 4/7-day treatment option led to antiretroviral blood levels close to continuous treatment after the four consecutive days of medication, and to low levels at the end of the non-treatment period., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Avelumab first-line (1 L) maintenance is a standard of care for advanced urothelial carcinoma (aUC) based on the JAVELIN Bladder 100 phase 3 trial, which showed that avelumab 1 L maintenance + best supportive care (BSC) significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) vs BSC alone in patients who were progression free after receiving 1 L platinum-containing chemotherapy. Here, we comprehensively screened JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial datasets to identify prognostic factors that define subpopulations of patients with longer or shorter OS irrespective of treatment, and predictive factors that select patients who could obtain a greater OS benefit from avelumab 1 L maintenance treatment., Methods: We performed machine learning analyses to screen a large set of baseline covariates, including patient demographics, disease characteristics, laboratory values, molecular biomarkers, and patient-reported outcomes. Covariates were identified from previously reported analyses and established prognostic and predictive markers. Variables selected from random survival forest models were processed further in univariate Cox models with treatment interaction and visually inspected using correlation analysis and Kaplan-Meier curves. Results were summarized in a multivariable Cox model., Results: Prognostic baseline covariates associated with OS included in the final model were assignment to avelumab 1 L maintenance treatment, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, site of metastasis, sum of longest target lesion diameters, levels of C-reactive protein and alkaline phosphatase in blood, lymphocyte proportion in intratumoral stroma, tumor mutational burden, and tumor CD8+ T-cell infiltration. Potential predictive factors included site of metastasis, tumor mutation burden, and tumor CD8+ T-cell infiltration. An analysis in patients with PD-L1+ tumors had similar findings to those in the overall population., Conclusions: Machine learning analyses of data from the JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial identified potential prognostic and predictive factors for avelumab 1 L maintenance treatment in patients with aUC, which warrant further evaluation in other clinical datasets., (© 2024 The Author(s). Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To report long-term efficacy and safety of selinexor maintenance therapy in adults with TP53 wild-type (TP53wt) stage IV or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC) who achieved partial remission (PR) or complete remission (CR) following chemotherapy., Methods: Analysis of the prespecified, exploratory subgroup of patients with TP53wt EC from the phase 3 SIENDO study was performed. Progression-free survival (PFS) benefit in patients with TP53wt EC and across other patient subgroups were exploratory endpoints. Safety and tolerability were also assessed., Results: Of the 263 patients enrolled in the SIENDO trial, 113 patients had TP53wt EC; 70/113 (61.9%) had TP53wt/proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) EC, and 29/113 (25.7%) had TP53wt/deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) EC. As of April 1, 2024, the median PFS (mPFS) for TP53wt patients who received selinexor compared with placebo was 28.4 versus 5.2 months (36.8-month follow-up, HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.27-0.73). A benefit in mPFS was seen with selinexor versus placebo regardless of MMR status (patients with TP53wt/pMMR EC: 39.5 vs 4.9 months, HR 0.36; 95% CI 0.19-0.71; patients with TP53wt/dMMR EC: 13.1 vs 3.7 months, HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.18-1.34). Selinexor treatment was generally manageable, with no new safety signals identified., Conclusion: In the phase 3 SIENDO study, selinexor maintenance therapy showed a promising efficacy signal and a manageable safety profile in the prespecified subgroup of patients with TP53wt EC who achieved a PR or CR following chemotherapy. These results are being further evaluated in an ongoing randomized phase 3 trial (NCT05611931)., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Triplet regimen comprising proteasome inhibitors, immunomodulatory drugs, and dexamethasone (DEX) is a recommended induction/consolidation therapy for multiple myeloma (MM) patients eligible for transplant. In this Japanese phase II study conducted from 2017 to 2019, newly diagnosed MM patients aged 20-65 received four induction cycles with bortezomib (Bor), lenalidomide (Len), and DEX (VRD), followed by Bor and high-dose melphalan with autologous stem cell rescue. Subsequently, they underwent four consolidation cycles with carfilzomib, Len, and DEX (KRD), followed by Len maintenance until disease progression. A total of 141 patients were analyzed. In an intent-to-treat population, the complete or better response post induction was 19.9%, rising to 39.7%, 58.9%, and 62.4% after transplant, consolidation, and 1-year maintenance, respectively. With a median follow-up of 38 months, the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate was 83.5% and the 3-year overall survival rate was 92.5%. Severe adverse events (≥grade 3) occurred in ~30% of patients; however, there was no treatment-related mortality. These findings clearly showed the tolerability and effectiveness of this protocol. Nevertheless, patients with high-risk cytogenetics showed a trend toward lower 3-year PFS than those without (77.8% vs. 89.4%, p = 0.051), and ultra-high-risk cytogenetics (≥2 high-risk cytogenetics) had an even worse prognosis, with 61.2% 3-year PFS. To overcome this situation, a more potent treatment strategy incorporating novel agents such as the CD38-antibody should be assessed in future studies., (© 2024 The Authors. Cancer Science published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japanese Cancer Association.)

Background: The prospective phase III multi-centre L-MOCA trial (NCT03534453) has demonstrated the encouraging efficacy and manageable safety profile of olaparib maintenance therapy in the Asian (mainly Chinese) patients with platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer (PSROC). In this study, we report the preplanned exploratory biomarker analysis of the L-MOCA trial, which investigated the effects of homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) and programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression on olaparib efficacy., Methods: HRD status was determined using the ACTHRD assay, an enrichment-based targeted next-generation sequencing assay. PD-L1 expression was assessed by SP263 immunohistochemistry assay. PD-L1 expression positivity was defined by the PD-L1 expression on ≥ 1% of immune cells. Kaplan-Meier method was utilised to analyse progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: This exploratory biomarker analysis included 225 patients and tested HRD status [N = 190; positive, N = 125 (65.8%)], PD-L1 expression [N = 196; positive, N = 56 (28.6%)], and BRCA1/2 mutation status (N = 219). The HRD-positive patients displayed greater median PFS than the HRD-negative patients [17.9 months (95% CI: 14.5-22.1) versus 9.2 months (95% CI: 7.5-13.8)]. PD-L1 was predominantly expressed on immune cells. Positive PD-L1 expression on immune cells was associated with shortened median PFS in the patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations [14.5 months (95% CI: 7.4-18.2) versus 22.2 months (95% CI: 18.3-NA)]. Conversely, positive PD-L1 expression on immune cells was associated with prolonged median PFS in the patients with wild-type BRCA1/2 [20.9 months (95% CI: 13.9-NA) versus 8.3 months (95% CI: 6.7-13.8)]., Conclusions: HRD remained an effective biomarker for enhanced olaparib efficacy in the Asian patients with PSROC. Positive PD-L1 expression was associated with decreased olaparib efficacy in the patients with germline BRCA1/2 mutations but associated with improved olaparib efficacy in the patients with wild-type BRCA1/2., Trial Registration: NCT03534453. Registered at May 23, 2018., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: The combination of sequential intravesical gemcitabine and docetaxel (Gem/Doce) chemotherapy has been considered a feasible option for BCG (Bacillus Calmette-Guérin) treatment in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), gaining popularity during BCG shortage period. We seek to determine the efficacy of the treatment by comparing Gem/Doce induction alone vs induction with maintenance, and to evaluate the treatment outcomes of two different dosage protocols., Methods: A bi-center retrospective analysis of consecutive patients treated with Gem/Doce for NMIBC between 2018 and 2023 was performed. Baseline characteristics, risk group stratification (AUA 2020 guidelines), pathological, and surveillance reports were collected. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to detect Recurrence-free survival (RFS)., Results: Overall, 83 patients (68 males, 15 females) with a median age of 73 (IQR 66-79), and a median follow-up time of 18 months (IQR 9-25), were included. Forty-one had an intermediate-risk disease (49%) and 42 had a high-risk disease (51%). Thirty-seven patients (45%) had a recurrence; 19 (23%) had a high-grade recurrence. RFS of Gem/Doce induction-only vs induction + maintenance was at 6 months 88% vs 100%, at 12 months 71% vs 97%, at 18 months 57% vs 91%, and at 24 months 31% vs 87%, respectively (log-rank, p < 0.0001). Patients who received 2 g Gemcitabine with Docetaxel had better RFS for all-grade recurrences (log-rank, p = 0.017). However, no difference was found for high-grade recurrences., Conclusion: Gem/Doce induction with maintenance resulted in significantly better RFS than induction-only. Combining 2 g gemcitabine with docetaxel resulted in better RFS for all-grade but not for high-grade recurrences. Further prospective trials are necessary to validate our results., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background and Aims: Βiologic agents and small molecules have expanded the therapeutic armamentarium of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC). However, their comparative efficacy and safety performance as maintenance treatments have not been sufficiently explored. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NWM) to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of all approved and emerging treatments for maintenance in moderate to severe UC., Methods: We searched Pubmed/Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant RCTs through April 2023. The primary endpoint was clinical remission at the end of the maintenance therapy. Data were analyzed by means of a Bayesian NWM. The ranking probability concerning efficacy and safety was evaluated by means of surfaces under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) values., Results: There were 20 eligible RCTs with 7660 patients randomized to 20 treatments. RCTs were grouped into two study designs, that is, re-randomization of patients after an induction period and treat-through patients. Concerning efficacy, in re-randomized patients, upadacitinib 30 mg/day was ranked first (SUCRA 94.9%) whereas in treat-through patients etrasimod 2 mg/day was ranked first (SUCRA 91.1%). The integrated efficacy-safety hierarchical analysis, showed that tofacitinib 10 mg had the best efficacy-safety therapeutic profile in re-randomized patients, whereas in treat-through patients infliximab 3.5 mg/Kg Q8W showed the best efficacy-safety profile., Conclusion: For maintenance treatment, in moderate to severe UC, this NWM showed that upadacitinib 30 mg/day and etrasimod 2 mg/day were ranked best for efficacy in re-randomized and treat-through patients respectively. Tofacitinib 10 mg/day and infliximab 3.5 mg/Kg Q8W showed the best efficacy-safety therapeutic profile in re-randomized and treat-through patients respectively., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Infliximab and vedolizumab are widely used to treat Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC)., Aims: This systematic review and network meta-analysis evaluated comparative efficacy of various regimens for intravenous or subcutaneous infliximab and vedolizumab during maintenance treatment in CD and UC., Methods: Parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified by a systematic literature review (CRD42022383401) and included if they evaluated therapeutics of interest for maintenance treatment of adults with moderate-to-severe luminal CD or UC and assessed clinical remission between Weeks 30 and 60. Clinical remission rates in CD or UC and mucosal healing rates in UC were analyzed in a Bayesian network meta-analysis model. Endoscopic outcomes in CD were synthesized by proportional meta-analysis., Results: Overall, 13 RCTs were included in the analyses. All vedolizumab studies randomized induction responders to maintenance treatment; infliximab studies used a treat-through design. Subcutaneous infliximab 120 mg every 2 weeks had the highest odds ratio (OR) [95% credible interval] versus placebo for clinical remission during the maintenance phase (CD: 5.90 [1.90-18.2]; UC: 5.45 [1.94-15.3]), with surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values of 0.91 and 0.82, respectively. For mucosal healing in UC, subcutaneous infliximab 120 mg every 2 weeks showed the highest OR (4.90 [1.63-14.1]), with SUCRA value of 0.73, followed by intravenous vedolizumab 300 mg every 4 weeks (SUCRA value, 0.70). Endoscopic outcomes in CD were better with subcutaneous infliximab 120 mg every 2 weeks than intravenous infliximab 5 mg/kg every 8 weeks., Conclusions: Subcutaneous infliximab showed a favorable efficacy profile for achieving clinical remission and endoscopic outcomes during maintenance treatment in CD or UC., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Ovarian cancer, notable for its severe prognosis among gynecologic cancers, has seen substantial progress in treatment approaches recently. Enhanced protocols in chemotherapy and the introduction of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for maintenance therapy have markedly improved outcomes for patients with specific genetic profiles, such as those positive for BRCA mutations or exhibiting homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). Additionally, the method of intraperitoneal chemotherapy administration has emerged as a valuable alternative to traditional transvenous routes, showing promise for wider clinical adoption. The field of surgery has also evolved, with increasing exploration into the benefits and feasibility of laparoscopic methods over more invasive traditional surgeries, aiming for complete tumor removal but with reduced patient impact. The hereditary nature of ovarian cancer underscores the importance of genetic testing, which has become integral in tailoring treatment strategies, particularly in determining suitability for PARP inhibitors. The formation of the East Asian Gynecologic Oncology Trial Group (EAGOT) aims to optimize treatment across Japan, Korea, China, and Taiwan. The ovarian cancer committee of EAGOT shared the current policies, focusing on 5 topics: 1) strategies for maintenance therapy after initial surgery and chemotherapy, 2) drug regimens for platinum-sensitive and platinum-resistant recurrence, 3) intraperitoneal chemotherapy, 4) laparoscopic surgery as an alternative to laparotomy, and 5) current status of genetic testing (BRCA, HRD, and panel tests) for ovarian cancer and its prospects. EAGOT's multi-national trials aim to harmonize these evolving treatment strategies, ensuring that the latest and most effective protocols are accessible across the region, thereby significantly impacting patient outcomes in East Asia., Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported., (© 2024. Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology, and Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology.)

Objective: PARP (poly adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose polymerase) inhibitors are approved as maintenance therapy in platinum sensitive ovarian cancer (OC), in first line and in the recurrent setting, regardless of BRCA mutational status. Real-world data after the introduction of these agents are needed to evaluate whether the benefit observed in phase III randomized clinical trials can be translated into clinical practice. The aim of our study was to provide real-life data on efficacy and safety of niraparib administered as maintenance in platinum sensitive relapsed OC patients (PSROC)., Methods: This retrospective/prospective observational study included relapsed OC patients that received niraparib as maintenance, at the time of platinum sensitive recurrence within the Italian expanded-access program. Clinical data at the time of diagnosis and at the time of recurrence were collected and analyzed. Median progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated as the time from start of niraparib treatment to subsequent radiologically confirmed relapse and death or last contact, respectively., Results: Among 304 eligible patients, 260 (85%) had BRCA wild-type tumor and 36. (11.9%) were BRCA mutated. Median PFS was 9.1 months (95% CI: 6.9-11.2) and 10.3 months (95% CI: 7.0-13.5) in the BRCAwt and BRCAmut cohorts, respectively. Furthermore, median OS was 41.7 months (95% CI: 31.6-41.9) and 34.6 months (95% CI: N.E.) in the BRCAwt and BRCAmut cohorts, respectively., Conclusion: Data from this large real-life dataset suggested that maintenance with niraparib in the real-life setting of platinum sensitive OC recurrence is effective and well tolerated., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Marilena Di Napoli reports honoraria from GSK, BSM, MSD; Antonella Savarese reports honoraria from Tesarobio/GSK, AstraZeneca and MSD; Carmine De Angelis reports advisory role from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Daicii-Sankyo, Gilead and GSK, an speaker honoraria from Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Seagen, GSK, Gilead, and Daichii-Sanchio, and travel grant from Gilead and research support (to the Institutional) from Novartis, Gilead, and Daiichi-Sankyo outside the submitted work; Sandro Pignata reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, MSD, Roche, GSK, Pharmamar and research funding from Roche, MSD, Pfizer, GSK, Astrazeneca; Giovanni Scambia reports consultancy for AstraZeneca, MSD, Covidien AG, a Medtronic company speaker bureau honorarium from Olympus Europa SE & CO. KG, Baxter Healthcare SA, Intuitive Surgical Inc., GlaxoSmithKline S.p.A; Domenica Lorusso reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Clovis, Genmab, Immunogen, Merck, Roche, Tesaro/GSK, PharmaMar, Consultancy or Advisory Role from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, Immunogen, Genmab, Amgen, Seagen, PharmaMar, AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Seagen, Genmab, Oncoinvest, Corcept, Sutro, Speakers' Bureau from AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, GSK, MSD, PharmaMar, Research Funding from Clovis (Inst), Merck (Inst), PharmaMar (Inst), Tesaro/GSK (Inst), expert Testimony from Clovis and travel, accommodations, expenses from AstraZeneca, Clovis, PharmaMar, Roche, Tesaro., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)